That might be welcome news for the people of Gore, who will be sick of the Eastern Southland town being constantly in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. All the same, it leaves the public in the dark about what brought a majority of councillors to seek Mr Bell’s resignation the previous week.
The mayor’s "actions", obliquely referred to by those behind the move and which supposedly prompted them to propose a no-confidence motion brought to an extraordinary meeting on Tuesday, have never been spelled out.
At that meeting the warring councillors were also bizarrely proposing to remove Mr Bell from all committees.
Instead, after a closed meeting on Monday afternoon, the councillors decided to back down. Mr Bell and the councillors issued a statement apologising to the community and each other for the recent turmoil.
They said in a move to restore trust with the public and with each other they had agreed to put their differences aside and refocus on serving the Gore district.
The statement said they had reunited after an in-depth, transparent and honest conversation.
They agreed they all needed to communicate more openly and effectively so there were no further misunderstandings that could lead to an irreparable breakdown in trust.
This turnaround meant the no-confidence motion lapsed, along with the proposal about the committee removal. Mr Bell voluntarily removed himself from the appraisal committee for the chief executive Steve Parry as did Cr Richard McPhail, who has been acting as an intermediary between Messrs Bell and Parry.
The latest sideshow, and delays in promptly addressing whatever the issues are between Mr Bell and Mr Parry, have fuelled public interest in the drama, but this has generated more heat than light.
One councillor has already resigned, others have been accused of childish behaviour, concerning questions have been raised about the culture at the council over decades, petitioners have demanded Mr Parry’s resignation and many members of the public have loudly aired their views about who is right and wrong.
This pressure no doubt led to the councillors’ backdown, but it is hard to believe everything will miraculously have turned to sweetness and light.
The no-confidence motion was nonsensical as it could only be symbolic, something councillors should have been well aware of. It is difficult to understand what they thought it would achieve, apart from piling more pressure on to Mr Bell, while attracting more negative headlines and possibly unwelcome attention from the Department of Internal Affairs. It did, however, show a high level of frustration, but without explanation.
Mr Parry was not present at this week’s meetings since he is on compassionate leave. He has previously been quoted as saying his relationship with Mr Bell was irreparable. We do not know if he still holds that view, but if he does, it is hard to see where councillors’ newfound enthusiasm for working with the mayor fits with that.
It is good the council has seen the value in calling in support from Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā — Local Government Professionals Aotearoa for the independent review.
This review cannot get under way soon enough and the council sensibly decided to allow a sub-committee to act on finalising the terms of reference.
We agree with Mr Bell there is a need for a "do it once, do it right" approach to the review and we hope it will be completed as promptly as possible.
